|
HCAL 297/2022
[2026] HKCFI 893
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 297 of 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Warisman Reno |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Calvin Cheuk made on 4 February 2026:
1. Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be granted.
2. Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 5 May 2022 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 1 March 2022, which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 8 September 2021.
2. The Applicant named both the TCAB and the DOI as the proposed respondents. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and/or Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A), I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the putative interested party.
3. Before the hearing scheduled for 4 February 2026, by letter dated 7 January 2026, the Applicant informed the Court that she wanted to go back to Indonesia, close her case and vacate the hearing.
4. To avoid any misunderstanding, she was asked to attend the hearing, at which she confirmed that she wanted to withdraw her application.
5. There being no indication that the application for withdrawal was made other than of the Applicant’s own free will, I accede to the application and grant the order accordingly.
Dated the 12th day of February 2026
| |
(Gladys Lee)
for Registrar, High Court
|
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 12/02/2026
Warisman Reno
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 22/01/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18762/21/9/114/I2222
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1188/21 (Formerly as RBCZ 11206/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|